Recipes? Youtube. Sharing pictures of your family? Instagram and Facebook. A quick post about what you’re thinking about? Twitter. Social media companies have become an ever-dominant force within our culture because of its versatility. However, this dominance can and has become an overstep into personal boundaries.
Social media works by appealing to users typically through their likes and dislikes to keep them using their platform. Or, in simpler terms, an “algorithm” is used to keep a diverse user base interested and interacting. However, the methods that companies use to get user data have raised disapproval and concern. Some of these methods are downright invasions of privacy to many. For example, Instagram was accused of allegedly spying on its users through their cameras to gain information. Users were understandably outraged.
A key feature of social media is the users’ freedom. An Instagram user can choose to show as much or as little of their life as they like. If and when a company takes that away, social media companies lose much of what made their platform so valuable in the first place.
This isn’t even the first time something of the sort happened to Facebook Inc., the parent company of Instagram. Just a few years ago, Mark Zuckerberg came under fire for allowing Cambridge Analytica, a consulting firm, to illegally collect data on American voters. This data was then used to appeal politically to voters based on what they previously had shown interest in. Regardless of whether the data collection translated to real political change, it was both unethical and a breach of the rules.
Unfortunately, it seems these companies are still successful, despite their betrayal to consumers. Facebook and Instagram are still actively used by hundreds of millions of people.
Have Silicon Valley companies become too powerful? Although it may be difficult to notice, technology has changed people’s day-to-day actions over the past couple of decades. Amongst Generation Z, many have become addicted to the momentary satisfaction that a view or like on social media provides. Technology undeniably has great benefits, but it may be time for people to question whether social media developers’ powers are too impactful to be left unchecked.
The power dynamic between companies and their consumers is large. Consumers have little way of making change on their own, which makes them complicit. Companies do what they can profit off of. They don’t mind angry dissent, as long as the majority of their users don’t care.
An example of social media companies using their power positively can be seen with the events following the capital riots on January 6th. Shortly following the riots, the social media platform Twitter banned President Donald Trump’s account to avoid “further incitement of violence”. During a time with animosity brewing between two sides of the nation, removing any risks of escalating the conflict, including Trump’s tweets, was unequivocally necessary. Many prominent figures of the Republican party understood what was at stake and made necessary statements to condemn the riots, including Senator Mitt Romney and Vice President Mike Pence.
Is this level of power supposed to belong with these companies? Although unilateral control of online platforms can help with taking swift, necessary actions, many are concerned that there is a possibility of them using their power to serve their self-interests. People interested in trading Gamestop shares were infuriated when Robinhood, a commission-free stock trading app, blocked its users from buying GME among other stocks. Robinhood later explained in a blog post that they had to close certain stocks due to a surge in their clearinghouse requirements.
Now that people are no longer underestimating the impact of social media on global events, social media companies have recently begun to take action to combat the spread of crime and violence through social media. Mark Zuckerberg has stated that Facebook aims to increase its focus on privacy. Last year, Twitter used FBI intelligence to take down 130 of its accounts which were aiming to cause conflict during the presidential election. In 2018, Twitter suspended accounts that belonged to members of the Proud Boys, a far-right organization.
Although it’s evident that action is being taken by social media companies to reduce violence, people are still questioning whether government control is necessary to prevent violence from arising from social media. Giving the government total control over social media may not be the best course of action, as their power over social media will then be unlimited. Under an oppressive government, this can lead to an abridgment of first amendment rights.
Twitter’s collaboration with the FBI should set a precedent for how threats on social media should be handled. Instead of giving the government total control over social media regulation, the social media companies should establish a safe and secure environment at their discretion, and the government should play an assistive role in making sure social media doesn’t facilitate any new threats. Although there is a possibility of the social media companies controlling what information is on their platforms to bolster their agenda, competitors that provide a better environment will serve to keep them in check.